What is Tesla's upcoming 'under your nose' announcement?

[SteveG3]

Yea, I saw that too and it again seems to completely counter Tesla's other statements. Tesla has been pushing SCs with the free for life bit which is inline with the whole cheaper to operate angle they (very correctly) tout.

Then turn around and introduce a model that's not free and costs roughly the same as gas?

I get what battery swapping brings, it just seems to run counter to all that Tesla's currently promoting. As for winning hearts and minds, they've already raised guidance for this year and 50% for sometime in the future at 30,000 a year. They don't need to win hearts and minds any faster than they already are.

I see it differently ckessel, I see them offering an option to those who can't see waiting 30-40 minutes, without taking the SC option away from those who can. There's a ton of software online where you can get the free version or pay up for the premium. I don't resent Adobe or Google for having premium products they charge for... I'm psyched they also have PDF software and Gmail for free.

ckessel, can you really blame Tesla not wanting to have to spend 3X the SC budget to accomodate holiday traffic for free and have those SCs go unused all the rest of the year? the SCs that would power battery swap system would be covered in something like a $1,500 option price to owners.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Yea, I saw that too and it again seems to completely counter Tesla's other statements. Tesla has been pushing SCs with the free for life bit which is inline with the whole cheaper to operate angle they (very correctly) tout.

Then turn around and introduce a model that's not free and costs roughly the same as gas?

I get what battery swapping brings, it just seems to run counter to all that Tesla's currently promoting. As for winning hearts and minds, they've already raised guidance for this year and 50% for sometime in the future at 30,000 a year. They don't need to win hearts and minds any faster than they already are.

Yes, this might end up being just as free as SuperCharging. Once the infrastructure is in place the marginal cost isn't much higher than the energy cost. The batteries are virtually indestructible, and you get the most use out of them by putting tons of miles on them.

 

[brianstorms]

What if Tesla announces a partnership with some existing company that already has facilities -- even if it's just a roof and four walls and a source of power -- that Tesla will be able to use?

Me, I'd be game for a partnership with In-n-Out. You enter the drive-thru, pull up to order your food, and there's a Tesla Model S detector that asks not only if you'd like fries with that, but would you like to swap out your battery...

But on a serious note -- what would be involved with battery swapping? All done robotically? Requiring technicians? Requiring lifting the car or not? Or, like with Jiffy Lube, requiring you to pull over a special "hole" (being careful not to drive into it) through which they go to work on your battery?

Seems like a huge amount of infrastructure investment.

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Just to re-emphasize, the money they are making from the "SuperCharger" hardware can basically finance this. There is no reason at all not to replace the SuperCharger program with swapping stations.

If you build a swap station, adding a couple of SuperChargers is a tiny additional cost. Just a few thousand dollars really to install the pylon chargers.

The big money was always in the transformers and other infrastructure associated with the SuperChargers, and all of that needs to be built into the SuperSwapper.

 

[Royal TS(LA)]

[..]

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.

Leasing the battery pack should bring down the initial cost nicely, right? Good for mass market stimulus IMHO.

 

[DonPedro]

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.

I'm thinking this. It makes for the most sensible logistics, both for customers and for the company.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

What if Tesla announces a partnership with some existing company that already has facilities -- even if it's just a roof and four walls and a source of power -- that Tesla will be able to use?

Me, I'd be game for a partnership with In-n-Out. You enter the drive-thru, pull up to order your food, and there's a Tesla Model S detector that asks not only if you'd like fries with that, but would you like to swap out your battery...

But on a serious note -- what would be involved with battery swapping? All done robotically? Requiring technicians? Requiring lifting the car or not? Or, like with Jiffy Lube, requiring you to pull over a special "hole" (being careful not to drive into it) through which they go to work on your battery?

Seems like a huge amount of infrastructure investment.

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.

Not really. They might be able to license the stations directly from Better Place, and just modify it slightly to meet the Tesla form factor. It would all be completely automated, with the main robotic assembly being underground.

 

[DonPedro]

Just to re-emphasize, the money they are making from the "SuperCharger" hardware can basically finance this. There is no reason at all not to replace the SuperCharger program with swapping stations.

If you build a swap station, adding a couple of SuperChargers is a tiny additional cost. Just a few thousand dollars really to install the pylon chargers.

The big money was always in the transformers and other infrastructure associated with the SuperChargers, and all of that needs to be built into the SuperSwapper.

Good point, even though swapping robots, battery inventory and charging points are going to cost a bit, too.

 

[ckessel]

I see it differently ckessel, I see them offering an option to those who can't see waiting 30-40 minutes, without taking the SC option away from those who can.

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -

ckessel, can you really blame Tesla not wanting to have to spend 3X the SC budget to accomodate holiday traffic for free and have those SCs go unused all the rest of the year? the SCs that would power battery swap system would be covered in something like a $1,500 option price to owners.

I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.

Can someone explain how swapping places doesn't obsolete the SC? Someone said they'd be complementary, but I don't see how that's possible. Long distance travel is rare enough now as a % of miles driven. I can't imagine there'd be enough demand for 2 different solutions.

Maybe obsoleting the SC is the plan, but Tesla barely has them installed now and is actively touting them, so why do that if swapping will end up being the norm and they're staring "soon" according to the 10Q?

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.

What if it's still free and covered with the $1,500 SuperCharger fee (or some fee recognizably close to that)? I don't see what the objection would be. As a customer its a vastly better product (with the exception of the requirement to return to pick up your battery). As an investor its a larger (but affordable) investment that could increase the size of the market for the primary product. The revenue from increased market share easily trumps the relatively small costs that are largely being offset by customer fees anyways.

Anyone not wanting to swap can just use the SuperChargers which are co-located with the SuperSwappers anyways.

- - - Updated - - -

Darn. Better Place is listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

 

[SteveG3]

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.

Those extra SCs just get built and only used as the very rare peak peak times. The batteries, however, get used until they have no useful life... whether that takes a year or ten years. By charging a customer the cost/mile of the battery, I estimate at $.20/mile, the battery gets paid for.

(as to your point about small percentage of people not wanting this. I think up until February, Tesla may well have seen it as you do now. Why build this Super Swapper out, even if we charge for it as an option if not enough people will want it to recoup money? While Elon never budged an inch on Broder's report being non-sense, he did say Tesla would make a concerted effort to respond to the situation. In other words, they may have been on the fence about battery swap, and then decided it was worth it to put all the flak to rest even if they don't recoup the investment).

by the way "Super Swapper", nice C.O.

 

[ckessel]

What if it's still free and covered with the $1,500 SuperCharger fee (or some fee recognizably close to that)? I don't see what the objection would be.

Yea, that's fine. Just my previous question of why push SCs at all if swapping will be better and Tesla is starting swap stations "soon"? I can't see any reason Tesla wouldn't completely pull the plug on SC if swapping is faster and could be free/cheap.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.

Can someone explain how swapping places doesn't obsolete the SC? Someone said they'd be complementary, but I don't see how that's possible. Long distance travel is rare enough now as a % of miles driven. I can't imagine there'd be enough demand for 2 different solutions.

Maybe obsoleting the SC is the plan, but Tesla barely has them installed now and is actively touting them, so why do that if swapping will end up being the norm and they're staring "soon" according to the 10Q?

It might well obsolete them. It's to early to tell. If it can be offered for free it obviously does on primary corridors. SuperCharging might be relevant on secondary routes. I have no idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, that's fine. Just my previous question of why push SCs at all if swapping will be better and Tesla is starting swap stations "soon"? I can't see any reason Tesla wouldn't completely pull the plug on SC if swapping is faster and could be free/cheap.

Yes, that was the reason why I asked folks to lay odds on whether the "SuperCharger" announcement is going to cancel the program, lol.

 

[ckessel]

Those extra SCs just get built and only used as the very rare peak peak times. The batteries, however, get used until they have no useful life... whether that takes a year or ten years. By charging a customer the cost/mile of the battery, I estimate at $.20/mile, the battery gets paid for.

Yea, but you've got to have a stack of just as many batteries sitting around waiting for customers as you had SC stations waiting unused. You have to have enough that on the July4th weekend when everyone is driving that there's a battery for every single person that wants one, just like you'd need an SC for every single person that wants one.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, that was the reason why I asked folks to lay odds on whether the "SuperCharger" announcement is going to cancel the program, lol.

Well, if they announce swappers then I certainly hope they kill the SC. Waste of resources supporting and building out both.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Anyone wanna lay odds that Tesla SuperCharger strategy was both a backup (in case the business case for swapping didn't close) and FUD to jam Better Place out of the market and help Tesla get favorable pricing on a contract with Better Place to build swap stations? Or do we think that Tesla developed stations in house?

 

[SteveG3]

Yea, but you've got to have a stack of just as many batteries sitting around waiting for customers as you had SC stations waiting unused. You have to have enough that on the July4th weekend when everyone is driving that there's a battery for every single person that wants one, just like you'd need an SC for every single person that wants one.

All year you have to have 3X the SC spots for July 4th, almost all waste. Cost of one Super Swapper same whether it's used one per hour or 20 times. Cost of batteries the same, whether 7% of inventory in use or 70% in use. How is that? Because a battery in the system lives it's life in the system, is paid for 1 mile at a time by customers, whether that's over 1 year because there are X batteries or 10 years because there are 10X batteries. Does that make more sense?

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Yea, but you've got to have a stack of just as many batteries sitting around waiting for customers as you had SC stations waiting unused. You have to have enough that on the July4th weekend when everyone is driving that there's a battery for every single person that wants one, just like you'd need an SC for every single person that wants one.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, if they announce swappers then I certainly hope they kill the SC. Waste of resources supporting and building out both.

Yes, I don't see any real reason to have them both on primary travel corridors if you can offer the service for free. Out in the boonies though SuperChargers are a much more economical option.

 

[SteveG3]

Anyone wanna lay odds that Tesla SuperCharger strategy was both a backup (in case the business case for swapping didn't close) and FUD to jam Better Place out of the market and help Tesla get favorable pricing on a contract with Better Place to build swap stations? Or do we think that Tesla developed stations in house?

C.O. I do think part of wait on swapping was to watch how Better Place played out, and not validate their program somewhat by Tesla doing same. I really doubt they'll license Better Place. SpaceX has way out-engineered Boeing, I suspect same here with BP (though they wouldn't be hard to negotiate with at this point).

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I don't see any real reason to have them both on primary travel corridors if you can offer the service for free. Out in the boonies though SuperChargers are a much more economical option.

I still see a place for both. Do I want to pay for those miles with Swap battery? Am I stopping to get a meal anyway? Why not SC. That said, it's not clear until they get the thing going and they see how demand says. I've heard Elon say more than once he is agnostic about battery tech of the future, I'd imagine he has the same approach to range solution... whatever proves to work in the real world.

 

[ckessel]

All year you have to have 3X the SC spots for July 4th, almost all waste. Cost of one Super Swapper same whether it's used one per hour or 20 times. Cost of batteries the same, whether 7% of inventory in use or 70% in use. How is that? Because a battery in the system lives it's life in the system, is paid for 1 mile at a time by customers, whether that's over 1 year because there are X batteries or 10 years because there are 10X batteries. Does that make more sense?

No, sorry, I totally don't get it.

An SC slot is wasted when it's unused, got it.

Batteries are wasted sitting around unused too. If a swap station has to stock 20 batteries for peak travel days, but only use 10% of that on non-peak days then 18 batteries are, on average, sitting around unused.

Either way, the investment in capital is sitting around unused. What am I misunderstanding?

 

[brianstorms]

I was gonna say. Does TSLA acquire Better Place?